Posts Tagged ‘patent litigation’

More on the controversy that erupted in September: By ruling the patent invalid due to obviousness, a federal judge may have mooted Allergan’s innovative move to transfer its patent over a successful dry-eye drug, Restasis, to the St. Regis Mohawk tribe. “The Restasis patents are at the center of a novel legal strategy that involves using Native American sovereignty rights to avoid certain types of patent reviews, called inter partes reviews, or IPRs….But this ruling won’t be the last time sovereign immunity is used to defend patents.” [Joe Mullin, ArsTechnica] And for something contrarian, Joanna Shepherd at Truth on the Market offers context on the bypassing of inter partes reviews, saying IPR is a process itself unbalanced in favor of patent challengers.

David Barcelou and his company Automated Transactions, which have sued banks charging patent infringement over their use of Internet-connected automated teller machine technologies, in December filed a defamation suit in New Hampshire state court against the American Bankers Association, Crain’s Communications, and a variety of banks and other defendants. The suit contends that the defendants have engaged in a “smear campaign” intended to discredit the plaintiffs, prominently through use of the pejorative term “patent troll.” [Automated Transactions LLC v. ABA via IP Watchdog]

Is the notorious E.D. Texas, unwilling to release its clutch, coming up with new rules that will let it keep hearing its enormous patent docket? “In a recent decision, Eastern District of Texas Judge Rodney Gilstrap developed a broadly-sweeping four-factor ‘totality’ test seemingly aimed at keeping patent-infringement suits in his jurisdiction.” [Ryley Bennett, WLF]

This morning’s Supreme Court opinion in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, hinging on what I described in January as a dry point of statutory interpretation, is likely to stand as a landmark win for defendants in patent litigation – and, on a practical level, for fairer ground rules in procedure. A unanimous Court (8-0, Thomas writing, Gorsuch not participating) rejected the broad reading of a venue statute by which the Federal Circuit had empowered lawyers to forum-shop disputes from all over the country into a few decidedly pro-plaintiff venues, above all the largely rural Eastern District of Texas. From here out, defendants can still be sued in a district such as E.D. Tex. if they have a regular and established place of business in it, but the decision is likely to shrink what I called in my January preview a “jackpot patent litigation sector… that shifts around billions of dollar.” By redirecting cases into more neutral venues, it should bring outcomes closer to reflecting cases’ actual merits, which would in turn do much toward restoring confidence in this sector of the law.

If Congress believes the Court has erred it is free to restore patent venue to a more shopper-friendly set of rules. But after the experience of recent years, it is unlikely that a Congress of either party or any likely political complexion will have an appetite for doing that.

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the case of T.C. Heartland v. Kraft Foods, which turns on a minor detail of statutory interpretation but raises high stakes indeed: if the Court agrees that a 2011 enactment narrowed venue in patent suits, it could end the current arrangement in which plaintiffs are free to steer most such suits into just a few friendly jurisdictions. My write-up at Cato concludes:

My own suspicion is that not in a thousand years would a thoughtful deliberative process have entrusted the future care of intellectual property in America’s tech sector to the bench and bar of Marshall, Texas, population 24,501. But that’s in no way a reflection on the quality of the able if wily legal talent to be found in East Texas. It’s a reflection on the quality of the lawmakers in the U.S. Congress.

I’ve written about Antonin Scalia’s role in the late 1970s and early 1980s as editor of Regulation magazine, and more references to his work there came up at several panels during the recent Federalist Society lawyers convention, all worth watching for their own sake: antitrust (with Judges Doug Ginsburg, Frank Easterbrook (mentioning Regulation at 16:00), et al.), administrative law (Eugene Scalia, same, at 4:25+), and statutory interpretation (Paul Clement, same, at 36:15); and see earlier on my question at the telecommunications panel;

Federal charges result in plea deal. State then charges defendant over same conduct. Ought to call it double jeopardy, even if that means overturning misguided “dual sovereignty” doctrine [Ilya Shapiro and Thomas Berry on cert petition in Walker v. Texas]

Like a sports team getting to bet on its own game? “A well-known hedge-fund manager is taking a novel approach to making money: filing and publicizing patent challenges against pharmaceutical companies while also betting against their shares.” [WSJ; ten years ago on selling short, then suing] More: Bainbridge on an academic paper analyzing the effects when a litigant holds long or short positions in its opponent.